EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Mark Penn Tied to Controversial Nuclear Firm
Even as Sen. Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign was blasting Sen. Barack Obama for his ties to the Exelon Corporation, the firm of Mark Penn, Clinton's chief strategist, was earning hundreds of thousands of dollars from the very same nuclear energy giant.
This past week, Burson Marsteller, Penn's powerhouse consulting agency, was paid more than $230,000 by Exelon to help renew a nuclear energy license in New Jersey, the Huffington Post has learned. The payment was for work that took place over several months, and Burson is still employed by the company.
"They did some work for us in New Jersey between June and November," said Craig Nesbit, vice president of communications for Exelon Generation, a subsidiary. "That bill was invoiced on December 12 and it just took that long to pay these things... We still are paying them a little bit but it is ramping down."
It has been public knowledge that Exelon is a client of Burson. But news of the recent payment comes less than two weeks after the Clinton campaign, and Penn himself, took Obama to task for what they implied was preferential treatment for the company.
On February 3, 2008, the New York Times reported that Obama had backed away from criticism of Exelon following revelation that the company had not disclosed radioactive leaks at one of its nuclear plants. The Illinois Senator, the paper noted, chose to push legislation that offered guidance, rather than mandates, for prompt reporting of leaks. Moreover, the Times added, Obama's senior adviser David Axelrod worked as a consultant to Exelon, and "since 2003, executives and employees of Exelon, which is based in Illinois, have contributed at least $227,000 to Mr. Obama's campaigns for the United States Senate and for president."
Following the article's publication, the Clinton campaign pressed the notion that Obama had succumbed to pressure from his donors, even though Clinton had supported the bill. In a radio ad before the Nevada primary, the campaign used Obama's Exelon ties to cast doubt about his opposition to Yucca Mountain, a proposed nuclear waste depository. And in a memo to "interested parties," Penn himself highlighted the Times story, arguing that what Obama says is often contradicted by what journalists find "when they dig into the facts."
Nine days later, Penn's firm, Burson Marsteller, received $230,627.05 from Exelon -- roughly $3,000 more than the sum of Obama's campaign donations from Exelon employees -- for work deemed "Public Affairs."
Representatives from Burson confirmed the payment. While Howard Wolfson, a spokesperson for the Clinton campaign, said there were no political ties between Sen. Clinton and the company: "I dont recall Exelon sitting in Senator Clinton's office watering down legislation designed to protect people from nuclear leaks," he said.
The information about Penn's financial links to Exelon was not provided by any political campaign.
Burson, it should be noted, is not technically working for the Clinton campaign. But a subsidiary Penn, Schoen & Berland Associates is, having been paid more than $4.3 million so far. Moreover, Penn is Clinton's highest-ranking adviser and continues to hold the title of "worldwide CEO of Burson-Marsteller."
That he would have financial ties to Exelon, watchdog groups say, is of political significance.
"I think it is not that unusual to see advisers to all of the candidates also advising various interests and it is undoubtedly a tough thing for the candidates to be able to filter whether or not the advice they get from people who also lobby is going to be truly impartial advise," said Josh Israel, a senior researcher for the Center for Public Integrity's "Buying of the President 2008."
"Hopefully, the candidates will take it with a grain."
According to Nesbit, the work Burson undertook on Exelon's behalf was primarily to generate local political support for nuclear energy. In August 2007, the New Jersey Affordable, Clean, Reliable Energy Coalition (NJ ACRE) was created to help secure the renewal of the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant's operating license. Around that time, Burson set up speaking engagements and events for Patrick Moore, a Green Peace founder who now supports nuclear energy, to advocate on the plant's behalf. They also conducted at least one poll on the subject.
Criticism of renewing the Oyster Creek license has not been absent. Local officials and residents have worried that the nuclear station did not have a clear evacuation route in case of an accident, and was hazardous for local water life.
During the presidential campaign, Obama has said the he would like to explore nuclear power as an energy option while Clinton says she's "agnostic" on the issue.
Sam Stein is a Political Reporter at the Huffington Post, based in Washington, D.C. Previously he has worked for Newsweek magazine, the New York Daily News and the investigative journalism group Center for Public Integrity.
Copyright © 2008 HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
12 Comments so far
Show AllThey are all political whores who will say or do anything to stay in office.
Hoa binh
This is an example of the nuclear industry hedging their bets. They have also seen what has happened in France, where they won over the political elite to their cause, and now over 70% of that country's power is supplied by nukes. One must remember that there are competing power industries out there who want the prime position on the government tit (picture a litter of puppies competing for their places), especially now that it appears as if Oil has bitten too hard on the tit that fed it so well for so many years. The nuke industry retaining of Mark Penn is part of this process.
As always, its just a matter of do you want an Obama puppet or a Hillary puppet to replace the Bush puppet. But the same people pull the strings of all of them.
Or of course, you could vote for a candidate and a party that isn't a puppet. But that would mean ignoring the candidates you see on corporate TV and that are funded by corporate money.
Pen Mark Penn.
Same crap, different day.
"Around that time, Burson set up speaking engagements and events for Patrick Moore, a Green Peace founder who now supports nuclear energy, to advocate on the plant's behalf."
It's amazing how many articles continue to present Patrick Moore as a Greenpeace founder who magically saw the light and now thinks nuclear power will save the world. If nothing else, this often repeated statement demonstrates the effectiveness of the nuclear power PR machine. As pointed out by sourcewatch, Moore is a paid mouthpiece of the Nuclear Energy Institute and will say anything if someone drops a quarter in his ear.
http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Portal:Nuclear_Issues
One would think that a "top-tier" Democratic candidate would wish to avoid even the appearance of a Karl Rove type on their team.
But maybe not inside the amoral domain of politics, in which the end justifies the means.
PS: I noticed the reference to that charlatan Patrick Moore as a "Greenpeace Founder" too. And here I always thought he was the fifth Beatle! Humbug, I tell you! Humbug!
"I dont recall Exelon sitting in Senator Clinton's office watering down legislation designed to protect people from nuclear leaks," he said.
This reminds me of Nixon coaching his subordinates before they were to testify before Sam Ervin's committee in the Senate during Watergate.
I heard a segment on MPR (Minnesota Public Radio) tonight which discussed a nearby nuke plant (Monticello) wanting to increase its output by like 10%. Of course that'll mean more waste.
They interviewed an "environmental group" which was concerned about the waste, but immediately prefixed their response with something along the lines of how great nuclear was in reducing carbon emissions, etc. It's mind-blowing how nuclear critique has become taboo -- even on public radio. The concern is framed/scoped around waste, not around the issues I consistently hammer here:
* inherent autocratic aspect of its administration/ownership/control.
* m.i.c., weapons, and subsidy nature of the companies involved.
* insurance scam of their operations.
* security/sabotage issues.
* potential for catastrophic failure, etc.
* waste/containment for centuries (utterly dismal TCO).
And, another one I've not added to the mix here:
Namely, it goes like this: if we cannot handle coal equitably, cleanly, ethically, etc. what are the odds of that same society/controlling interests/politics handling nuclear?
The autocratic aspect of nuclear energy that Paul mentions is a problem because these capitalists have all kinds of other rackets going on and capitalist control over the people in the energy sector is leverage for them to secure and expand control in the other sectors, destroying land, food, water, job security, and further enslaving the people to the military industrial complex.
The difference between France and the US is that the French government fears/obeys the people whereas it's just the opposite in the US. The French are free, and Americans are enslaved. Despite that, the French remain vulnerable to nuclear sabotage and accidents, hidden costs of the fuel and waste storage, plus the inability to utilize the 75% waste heat (because it's too dangerous), and the heat pollution in local ecosystems, and global warming's deterioration of the already terrible efficiencies. In France this is offset somewhat by frugal consumption. In the US energy gluttony is the strategic goal (to drive economic growth at all cost - the mother of all the capitalist rackets).
"What are we going to do with all the garbage?"
Phil Ochs
I haven't heard a peep in the news for a decade or two regarding this issue... not a peep.
Their control is astounding.
When the Corporations went "green" with that PR media blitz last year, to control the conversation in the Public Sphere, I said to myself, "Self," says I, "Somebody is going to be permitted to build new nuclear facilities."
But I'm sure in ten thousand years the descendants of these Industry Executives and Politicians will be around to make sure all of that "life on earth ending" poison, is adequately contained.
"Even as Sen. Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign was blasting Sen. Barack Obama for his ties to the Exelon Corporation, the firm of Mark Penn, Clinton's chief strategist, was earning hundreds of thousands of dollars from the very same nuclear energy giant."
Here's one Obama's campaign might have picked-up on:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/09/the-clintons-a-case-stud_n_85854.html